Visitor Counter

Visitors Since Blog Created in March 2010

Click Below to:

Add Blog to Favorites

Coyotes-Wolves-Cougars.blogspot.com

Grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, coyotes, cougars/ mountain lions,bobcats, wolverines, lynx, foxes, fishers and martens are the suite of carnivores that originally inhabited North America after the Pleistocene extinctions.
This site invites research, commentary, point/counterpoint on that suite of native animals (predator and prey) that inhabited The Americas circa 1500-at the initial point of European exploration and subsequent colonization.
Landscape ecology, journal accounts of explorers and frontiersmen, genetic evaluations of museum animals, peer reviewed 20th and 21st century research on various aspects of our "Wild America" as well as subjective commentary from expert and layman alike. All of the above being revealed and discussed with the underlying goal of one day seeing our Continent rewilded.....Where big enough swaths of open space exist with connective corridors to other large forest, meadow, mountain, valley, prairie, desert and chaparral wildlands.....Thereby enabling all of our historic fauna, including man, to live in a sustainable and healthy environment. - Blogger Rick

First, the vast majority of croplands around the world are used to grow forage for livestock. It's a misnormer to suggest that croplands are feeding people. For instance, most of the new soy bean crops being carved out of Brazil, etc. is used for livestock feed. Less than 1-2% of the world' soy bean crop is consumed directly by humans. The rest is fed to livestock.

In the US, for instance, there are 90 plus million acres planted to corn. Everyone assumes that corn is what we eat when we have corn on the cob, but in reality it is feeder corn for livestock. Same for soy, sorghum, and most of the other grain crops. indeed, the only grain crop where the majority of the crop is consumed by humans is wheat--though even some wheat is fed to livestock as well. We have 130 million acres in hay/alfalfa

Further more John's concerns are unfounded for another reason. Most of the lands that can sustain crops already sustain crops--in fact many of the lands used for crops can't sustain crops, but farmers survive on government subsidies. For instance, much of the wheatlands in Montana do not produce an economically viable crop except every 6-8 years. The rest of the time, the farmers survive on subsidies. The point being that we would not see that much expansion of crops into rangelands in most places because if it could grow crops--even marginally farmers would already have it in crop production.

Unless you can change the parameters--i.e. you build a new dam and get irrigation to the land or something like that--you are not going to see a huge increase in farmland in former grazing lands. The only other exception is the affore mentioned clearing of tropical forests for new soy, pasture, etc. for livestock. But again these are not crops being used by humans.

Growing of other crops we normally consume takes place on a surprisingly small amount of land. For instance in the entire US we hae 100,000 areas in tomatoes, we have 43,000 acres in cucumbers, 116,000 acres in lettuce, etc. Really most of the vegetables we consume (admittedly we import some too) is grown on a very limited amount of land. No more than 4-5 million acres total. Go to page 7 of this pdf. for a list of the total acreage of all major vegetables planted in the US.

Hi Rick,It would seem as though John isn't taking into consideration the amount of land used simply to grow livestock feed. For example, in much of Eastern Oregon alfalfa is grown in the high desert. Much of the water to grow the alfalfa is diverted from rivers. Fish suffer from rivers constantly being drawn down. Alfalfa hay is a monoculture crop. Ungulates are typically not welcome visitors on lands that grow hay.

John also doesn't mention how fencing for livestock fragments habitat. Fencing in the Intermountain West is responsible for the deaths of thousands of pronghorn antelope.

Fence posts also create perches for raptors, which sadly enables them to prey on endangered sage grouse. Cows and sheep also denude/kill native plant species that ungulate species need for cover in their first few weeks of life, as well as for food throughout their lifespan. Cows also destroy riparian areas and introduce non-native plant species to fragile environments. John also mentions studies to support his theory, but is not specific to what countries/continents those studies are from.The point that seems to be missing in most of these discussions is the need for humans to stop reproducing at an unsustainable rate. In a world with 7+ billion people shouldn't we also be talking about how Homo sapiens have far exceeded carrying capacity? Shouldn't birth control also be at the forefront of these discussions?

Before we start, just so we are all on the same page, in conservation biology we define an Umbrella speciesas a "species selected for making conservation-related decisions, typically because protecting thisspecies indirectly protects the many other species that make up the ecological community of its habitat".Having defined this, let me proceed with the seemingly impossible task of considering domestic livestock, mostly cattle, as just such an umbrella species!

I say seemingly impossible because are not cattle considered to be the bane of conservation efforts? Are not there studies showing that cattle actually reduce biodiversity? Is not native vegetation, especially in the tropics being converted to pasture lands for hamburgers?Is there not a growing vegetarian movement partly based on the idea that eating meat, especially cow meat is bad for the planet??How can a conservation ecologist in their right mind actually propose that cattle could play one of the dominant roles, an umbrella species, in conservation? Well, before someone takes away my conservation card, let me explain.

First, we need to separate out the kind of domestic livestock I am talking about. There are the intensively raised livestock, for example cattle in feedlots, and there are the extensively raised ones, animals allowed to graze on the landscape. In the first case, as many have pointed out, how we intensively raise livestock today is a sin and a totally whole other issue. What I am talking about here are the livestock, again, mostly cattle, that are allowed to roam and graze over large areas of what is called pastureland, land that has some form of permanent grass andforb cover. Approximately 25 percent of the land surface of the world is devoted to these pasturelands for grazing livestock. This represents about 65-70% of all agricultural lands in the world. So grazing livestock dominates lands devoted to growing food for humans.

It is true that grazing livestockon such lands CAN be hard on biodiversity of these systems.However, studies have shown that this negative impact can be reduced IF livestock grazing is done correctly. But just grazing cattle right still does not justify them for umbrella status for these habitats. What does justify them for this status is the alternatives to grazing livestock on these lands.

What happens to the land IF we pull domestic animalsoff of current pasturelands? What becomes of those lands? In some areas, for example the western U.S., where much of that land is publically owned, removing cattle would likely be a beneficial thing. Though there are studies that show even in these cases, IF done right, cattle can actually increase biodiversity. But what about the rest of the world? In many cases, removing livestock means converting these lands to growing more intensive agricultural crops. For example, in Africa, from 1980 to 2000 the percent of pasturelands decreased from 31% to 29.6%, representing over 41 million hectares. Did these lands revert to more natural states, supporting native plants and animals? No, most of that land was converted to more intensive forms of agriculture to grow human plant food.And the pressure to make that conversion is intensifying.In fact a common argument made against cattle is that the same area used to grow x number of cattle could feed many times more people if the land was used to raise people food directly.

Intensively farmed, e.g. tilled, agricultural land normally has close to zero value for conservation and biodiversity. Sure there are efforts to maintain biodiversity within the intensively farmed landscape by providing shelter rows on the margins of fields but, as the name indicates, this is marginal at best! The majority of the land is tilled, planted, cropped, and tilled again yearly and is basically worthless for native plants and animals.I lived in southeastern Minnesota for several years and watched as the plow followed the soybean combine, leaving 10's of thousands of hectares of bare dirt for nine months of the year.And when the crops were there, they were dowsed with chemicals to kill any biodiversity that dared step foot on these lands.So which is better? Having those 10's of thousands of hectares of lifeless dirt so we can have more tofu? Or have those same acres covered in diverse species grasslands for livestock, and oh by the way, all the other species that can live in these grasslands but not in dirt?

As long as pasturelands stay pasturelands, they are conserving the biodiversity that can live there. Granted it might be less than what was there originally but it will still be many times more than what would replace it. And the main reason to keep them in pasturelands is to graze domestic animals on them to grow meat for humans to eat. THAT is why domestic livestock are an umbrella species. By maintaining (protecting) these species, we indirectly protect many other species that make up the ecological community of its habitat… pasturelands.

Again, before anyone used this as an unconditional endorsement for grazing, I again stress that it has to been done right. Any ungulate, domestic or wild can overgraze an area and cause declines in biodiversity. We are currently seeing this with excess deer numbers in eastern forest in the U.S. As I have stated, many studies have shown there is a right way and a wrong way to graze livestock on pasturelands and fortunately, the right way to do it economically is also the right way to do it ecologically.

In ending, I personally would rather remain an omnivore with a healthy meat diet, e.g. range grown beef, thus supporting themaintenance of biodiverse pasturelands than replace that meat in my diet with plants from ecological worthless croplands.I know this might anger a lot of people but we all need to educate ourselves as to how our diet is affecting biodiversity and then make our own personal choices.Mine is to continue to support livestock as an umbrella species.-------------------------------------------John W. Laundré has studied cougars for more than twenty years in both the United States and Mexico. As vice president of the Cougar Rewilding Foundation, he advocates the return of cougars to their former territorial range.JOHN LAUNDRE'S PEER REVIEWED "PREDATION RISK AND FEAR ARE CONCEPTS WELL ESTABLISHED IN ANIMAL BEHAVIOR...........click on link below

Outdated ideas driving wildfire policies

George Wuerthner has published 38 books, including "Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy

Our wildfire policy paradigm needs a dramatic overhaul. Current wildfire policies are driven by outdated ideas about fire behavior as well as the ignoring the important ecological role of wildfire in maintaining healthy forest ecosystems.

Wildfires are driven by climate/weather conditions. When the right conditions exist – which includes drought, low humidity, high temperatures and wind – you cannot stop a blaze.

And until the weather changes, firefighters cannot control a blaze. They are only wasting tax dollars and putting their lives at risk. Typically when the weather does turn, the blazes are destined for self-extinguishment, and only then can we put them out.

Therefore the call for more firefighters and more money to pay for fire-fighting efforts makes as much sense as throwing dollar bills on the blaze for all the good it will do.

What is well-established by scientists is that the larger blazes in the past few decades (however, not more than during previous past major drought period) are the consequence of progressively warmer and drier climate due to human-caused global warming. This has lengthen fire seasons and increased severity of fire weather.

In other words, the conditions that support fire spread and growth have improved. Comparisons with the mid-1900s (roughly 1940 through the 1980s) ignore the fact that for much of that time period, the climate was cooler and moister – thus resistant to large fires. Beginning with 1988 when there were large fires in Yellowstone and other areas of the West, we have seen a shift towards warmer, drier conditions, hence more large blazes.

During large blazes, wind-blown embers jump over, around, and through fuel reduction projects and fire lines making them largely ineffective.

Demanding more logging to “fire-proof” the forest is a fool’s errand. We can’t predict where a blaze will occur, and thus most fuel reductions are not even in the path of a fire. Furthermore, over time, all fuel reductions decline in effectiveness as trees and shrubs grow back.

Pause

Current Time0:00

/

Duration Time0:00

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

0:00

Fullscreen

00:00

Unmute

The only reasonable response that has been proven to work is to keep people from building in the “fire plain” (analogous to a flood plain) by zoning and to reduce the flammability of existing homes.

Research has demonstrated that fire-wise practices on homes is the most effective means of protecting communities. Reducing fuels in the home ignition zone no more than 200 feet from a structure is all that is needed. Logging the hinterlands miles from homes provides no additional benefits.

We need to adopt a new paradigm for living with wildfire. Protect the home and edge of communities by adopting fire-wise practices, and allow wildfires to assume their important ecological role in rejuvenating forest ecosystems.

Until we change our wildfire paradigm, we will only be wasting tax dollars in a futile efforts to halt unstoppable blazes and putting fire fighters at risk.

George Wuerthner has published 38 books, including "Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy."

I'm not sure if I responded to this or not. Anyone can attend this conference. An announcement on your Facebook page would be wonderful!!! Please click here for more information or to register: Living Large Conference

Join us at the Kellogg Conference Center at Gallaudet University for a Conference onLiving Large: Wolves, Bears, Cougars and Humans in North America.

This conference seeks to foreground the best ideas from animal welfare, conservation biology, public policy, conflict resolution, law, and other disciplines in the interests of securing the future of these iconic creatures.

DAY 1 – Monday October 12, 2015
Morning Session: Introducing Concepts and Ideas – Moderator: Nicole Paquette
8:30-8:35 Conference welcome, Nicole Paquette, The Humane Society of the United States
8:35-8:40 Introduction, Scope and Governance, Andrew Rowan, The Humane Society of the United States
8:40-8:45 Bob Koons Dedication, Andrew Rowan, The Humane Society of the United States
8:45-9:15 The Past, Present and Future: A vision for protecting/conserving the large predators – David
Macdonald, WildCRU, Oxford University
9:15-9:30 Q&A
9:30-9:45 break
9:45-10:15 Socio-political issues and the Protection of Large Predators – John Vucetich, Michigan
Technological University
10:15-10:30 Q&A
10:30-10:45 break
10:45-11:15 Wildlife management approaches: the classic North American approach and alternative
strategies – Susan Clark, Yale University
11:15-11:30 Q&A
11:30-11:45 break
11:45-12:15 Compassionate Conservation and Rewilding are More Than "Welfarism Gone Wild": On the
Importance of Individual Lives – Marc Bekoff, University of Colorado, Boulder
12:15-12:30 Q&A
12:30-1:30 lunch
Afternoon Session: Anthropogenic Impacts – Moderator: Rick Hopkins, Live Oak Associates
1:30-2:00 Overview of human impacts on large predators – Bradley Bergstrom, Valdosta State University
2:00-2:15 Q&A
2:15-2:30 break
2:30-3:00 Human impacts on Cougars – Rob Wielgus, Wisconsin State University
3:00-3:15 Q&A
3:15-3:30 break
3:30-4:00 Human impacts on Wolves – Paul Paquet, University of Calgary
4:00-4:15 Q&A
4:15-4:30 break
4:30-5:00 Coexisting with Carnivores in the 21st Century: Of people, predators and prophets – Stewart
Breck, US Dept. of Agriculture-APHIS
5:00-5:15 Q&A
5:15-5:30 Open Discussion, End of Day One

The Program
DAY 2 – Tuesday October 13, 2015
Morning Session: Attitudes and Public Policy – Moderator: Sharon Negri, Wild Futures
9:00-9:30 Sex, Death and Wildlife Management – Dave Mattson, US Geological Survey
9:30-9:45 Q&A
9:45-10:00 break
10:00-10:30 A Holistic Framework for Cougar Conservation in the 21st Century; Lessons Learned from the
Failed Perception-Based Management Strategies of the last several decades– Rick Hopkins, Live
Oak Associates
10:30-10:45 Q&A
10:45-11:00 break
11:00-11:30 Understanding the Carnivore Controversy: Attitudes toward Predators and Predator Control in
the United States, 1978-2014 – Jeremy Bruskotter, Ohio State University
11:30-11:45 Q&A
11:45-12:00 break
12:00-12:30 The Future of Carnivore Conservation in North America and Western Europe – Adrian Treves,
University of Wisconsin
12:30-12:45 Q&A
12:45-1:45 lunch
Afternoon Session: What is the future for large carnivores? – Moderator: Linda Sweanor, Wild Felid
Association
1:45-2:15 Cougars: The Challenges of Advocating for their Conservation – Wendy Keefover, The Human
Society of the United States
2:15-2:30 Q&A
2:30-2:45 break
2:45-3:15 The ethical landscape – Bill Lynn, Clark University
3:15-3:30 Q&A
3:30-3:45 break
3:45-4:15 The legal landscape –Ralph Henry, The Humane Society of the United States
4:15-4:30 Q&A
4:30-4:45 break
4:45-5:15 The next fifty years – Howard Quigley, Panthera
5:15-5:30 Q&A
5:30-5:45 Open Discussion, End of Day Two
6:30 pm Reception and Conference Dinner
Guest Speaker: Todd Wilkenson
Living Large Program

DAY 3 – Wednesday October 14, 2015
Morning Session: Current and Future Policy – Moderator: Andrew Rowan, The Humane Society of the United
States
9:00-9:30 John Shivik, US Forest Service
9:30-9:45 Q&A
9:45-10:15 Dan Ashe, US Fish & Wildlife Service
10:15-10:30 Q&A
10:30-11:00 break
11:00-11:30 Wayne Pacelle, The Humane Society of the United States
11:30-12:45 Panel Discussion (Ashe, Pacelle) – Moderator: Bernie Unti, The Humane Society of the United
States
12:45-1:00 Closing Remark

Setting Aside Half The Earth For ‘Rewilding’: The Ethical Dimension

August 27, 2015 | by William LynnWilliam S. Lynn, Ph.D. (Bill), is a research scientist in the George Perkins Marsh Institute at Clark University, Senior Fellow for Ethics and Public Policy in the Center for Urban Resiliance at Loyola Marymount University, and former Director of the Masters in Animals and Public Policy (MAPP) program at Tufts University.

His research and teaching focus on ethics and public policy, with an emphasis on animals, the environment and sustainability. Standing astride the environmental humanities and social sciences, Bill uses ethics and interpretive policy analysis to explore how moral norms shape public policy.

Outdoors: Killing

coyotes may

actually hurt deer herd

Answering reader questions about solving coyote problem

A few weeks ago I dedicated this space to
answering reader questions. As is often the case,
those answers triggered a flood of new inquiries
from readers, and I’ll address them here.

The questions are paraphrased, since often several
come in on the same subject, or are awkwardly
worded, etc. Many have already been answered
individually, but will run here because the answers
may benefit others.

Question: We all know that coyotes are killing the
deer population. Why doesn’t the state put bounty
on coyotes and let hunters solve the problem?

Answer: New York views the coyote as a game
animal, not vermin, and only allows hunting them
in a regulated season. That kind of negates a bounty
season.

Besides, maybe killing more coyotes isn’t a good
idea. I recently saw a magazine interview with
Mississippi State University professor Bruce
Leopold who said as much.He contends if the local
coyote population is hit hard, it can respond very
quickly to reduced numbers, and female may crank
out that maximum of 10 to 12 pups in a litter
instead of two or three. Plus the situation can
shift from a few old coyotes regulating themselves
— potentially killing each other to maintain
dominance — to a population of young,
inexperienced animals in greater numbers
who may have a greater impact on your deer
population.

Two Massachusetts Eastern Coyotes at their den site

Eastern Wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada

Aldo Leopold--3 quotes from his SAN COUNTY ALMANAC

"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect."

Aldo Leopold

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

Aldo Leopold

''To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."

Wildlife Rendezvous

Like so many conscientious hunters and anglers come to realize, good habitat with our full suite of predators and prey make for healthy and productive living............Teddy Roosevelt depicted at a "WILDLIFE RENDEZVOUS"

Recent Posts

Blog Disclaimer

This is a personal weblog. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer. In addition, my thoughts and opinions change from time to time…I consider this a necessary consequence of having an open mind. This blog is intended to provide a semi-permanent point in time snapshot and manifestation of my various thoughts and opinions, and as such any thoughts and opinions expressed within out-of-date posts may not be the same, nor even similar, to those I may hold today. All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. Rick Meril and WWW.COYOTES-WOLVES-COUGARS.COM make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis.